Prior to section 775.082(10)'s passage, a court's upward departure based on an offender's danger to the public alone was impermissible. See Keys v. State, 500 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla.1986) ; see also Ready v. State, 657 So.2d 53, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ; Reid v. State, 488 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ; Angle v. State, 604 So.2d 34, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ; Odom v. State, 561 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ; Morgan v. State, 528 So.2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) ; Mendenhall v. State, 511 So.2d 342, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The reasoning behind this line of cases was that no adequate litmus test existed for assessing public dangerousness.
The State also concedes that protection of the public and the age of the victims (numbers 1 and 2) are insufficient departure reasons unless coupled with another valid reason. See Ready v. State, 657 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Lattimore v. State, 571 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Therefore, there is no need to analyze these two factors unless there exists another valid basis for departure in the remaining reasons.